After watching the video and having a chance to digest the iPhone 8/+ and X, I have concluded that Apple just leaped some of the camera manufacturers in terms of technology and ease of implementation.

I was very impressed by the portrait lighting and ability to turn a background black. Yes, there are way to do this photographically but require either the right conditions or equipment to be set up. It can also be done in Photoshop but not everyone has the ability to do so seamlessly. The decline of point and shoots by camera manufacturers will likely continue as people turn to their phones for family moments, travel, and portraiture. It has not exceeded what an SLR can do but it removes many of the tasks and does so in real time. In essence, Apple is reducing the effects of bad, negligent, indifferent techniques of photography and wiping them out and giving the user a nice end product without any hassle.

There will probably be a noticeable difference on social media when the iPhone 8/+ and X ship. More images will have a dramatic look when people post pictures of friends and family. I wonder if people will look back at the era photos and see where that "look" started to be commonplace.

It will be interesting to see how camera manufacturers respond. At the moment, the processing power in the iPhone is likely camera manufacturers may not be willing to add since it would add cost to the lower end and mid-tier cameras. High end users will probably deem these iPhone features as beneath them and wouldn't want any added cost either. They may ultimately end up having a scan number of point and shoots or ceasing production of point and shoot cameras altogether

Still, they needed professional lighting but I feel that another issue are prints. Since we see most images on a TV or computer, it doesn't matter much what you shoot with. And Time, e.g., is no larger than an 8x10 print. So the tiny sensors in phones work just fine for that.

To wit: I just did some work where I was asked to bid on a job shooting high end machines. Turns out I was hired only to do the post production on images of the machines that were then shot on an iPhone! A sales rep shot them and the only-only! saving grace was that they were small.

So, the boss says lets do it cheap and instead of hiring a photographer they had a sales rep shoot it. And they weren't going to be enlarged enough to make a difference and that the sales rep never even knew he could have adjusted his phone for higher resolution and image stabilization to get better images. It's a dumbing down process but hardly anyone knows it!

iPhone X finally puts to rest the "excuse" (for lack of a better word) that the larger Plus chassis was needed for better/more lenses. And with so many phones now offered it seems weirder and weirder that the best cameras remain on the Plus models.

I understand the need for product differentiation, but how many buyers of the large phones really care necessarily about the better camera? Isn't the screen size the main draw?

Still, they needed professional lighting but I feel that another issue are prints. Since we see most images on a TV or computer, it doesn't matter much what you shoot with. And Time, e.g., is no larger than an 8x10 print. So the tiny sensors in phones work just fine for that.

I don't get it. There is so much wrong with this situation. In my opinion, she created a bunch of photos that are 'meh' at best. Using an inferior tool to do them I guess is kind of an excuse, but they're still meh.

Quotedeckeda
iPhone X finally puts to rest the "excuse" (for lack of a better word) that the larger Plus chassis was needed for better/more lenses. And with so many phones now offered it seems weirder and weirder that the best cameras remain on the Plus models.

I understand the need for product differentiation, but how many buyers of the large phones really care necessarily about the better camera? Isn't the screen size the main draw?

The camera advantages of the 7+ were a big reason in my buying it. Yes, I wanted the larger screen and longer battery life, but the features that sealed the deal were 2x optical camera and OIS.

Still, they needed professional lighting but I feel that another issue are prints. Since we see most images on a TV or computer, it doesn't matter much what you shoot with. And Time, e.g., is no larger than an 8x10 print. So the tiny sensors in phones work just fine for that.

I don't get it. There is so much wrong with this situation. In my opinion, she created a bunch of photos that are 'meh' at best. Using an inferior tool to do them I guess is kind of an excuse, but they're still meh.

Yes, true. It's the future, tho. I think a point here is that photographs can be created by software now. The camera almost makes no difference any more...

Still, they needed professional lighting but I feel that another issue are prints. Since we see most images on a TV or computer, it doesn't matter much what you shoot with. And Time, e.g., is no larger than an 8x10 print. So the tiny sensors in phones work just fine for that.

I don't get it. There is so much wrong with this situation. In my opinion, she created a bunch of photos that are 'meh' at best. Using an inferior tool to do them I guess is kind of an excuse, but they're still meh.

Yeah, but I think the point here though is that an iphone/smartphone is good enough. There's probably some point and shoots that are good enough for a magazine cover as well.
Whether they've lowered their standards to accomplish good enough I can't tell.
----------------------
Despite all the recognition software also used in autonomous driving and 3d mapping and manipulating images, so far many of the in-camera- images still look manipulated to me. Maybe I need to see more of them.

The Phorum Wall keeps us safe from illegal characters and words
The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is the knowledge of one's own ignorance. -Benjamin Franklin
BOYCOTT YOPLAIT [www.noyoplait.com]
[soundcloud.com]

I think there will always be a market for a cheap camera that doesn't have such advanced features, but certainly people will be considering what to buy based on the technology that is available.

There is a chance that the new iPhones will produce "canned" results as the popularity increases, which leaves some room for more professional photographers who can think for themselves to develop a look.

Quotebillb
Yeah, but I think the point here though is that an iphone/smartphone is good enough. There's probably some point and shoots that are good enough for a magazine cover as well.
Whether they've lowered their standards to accomplish good enough I can't tell.

IMO this is on point. Everyone readjusts their expectations based on their prior knowledge of a situation.

Choosing the cheap wine over the expensive one and saying it's "quite good."

Same for those mini Bose speakers. "They sound great!*"
*" for a tiny set of speakers I thought would be utter crap."

"Those pictures are OK, we should use them on the website. Oh? Taken with a lowly 1/2.7" sensor phone camera? Wow they look pretty good then, let's put them on the cover and make a story of it."